Rotate crop and image

[LRList001]

'Evening all

Am I missing something obvious? How do I rotate the image and the crop? I have an image with the camera at 45 degrees to horizontal. I want to crop square and then rotate both back 45 degrees, to end up with a diamond. (Yes I can fix this outside LR in a moment.)

Thanks in advance

 

[clee01l]

You can't rotate images in LR other than ±90˚ That is 45 ˚ is not possible in LR. Part of the reason is the way image pixels are stored in the file They are stored linearly row by row. Each row in the file data block contains an equal number of pixels. Pixel editors can create "empty" pixels which is why you can create a diamond shape in pixel editors.

 

[LRList001]

You can't rotate images in LR other than ±90˚ That is 45 ˚ is not possible in LR. Part of the reason is the way image pixels are stored in the file They are stored linearly row by row. Each row in the file data block contains an equal number of pixels. Pixel editors can create "empty" pixels which is why you can create a diamond shape in pixel editors.

Thank you.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

Actually Lightroom can rotate images other than 90 degrees. It can straighten a horizon with the crop tool, and there is a rotate slider in the Lens Corrections block (Transformation in the latest version, but you use Lr 5.7). The latter will create empty pixels if needed, the crop tool will not. I don't know by heart how far you can rotate, so just try if that gets the desired effect. Be sure to uncheck 'Maintain Crop'!

You may have to lower the Scale slider too, in order to keep the corners inside the frame.

 

[Rob_Cullen]

Lr Crop Tool rotates the photo, but also constrains/fills the image within the crop frame.
Transform panel in Lr will only rotate the image a maximum +- 10 (degrees?) with some 'empty' pixels (that Lr cannot edit!)
For 45degrees a pixel editor will be needed (Photoshop, Elements, etc)

 

[Johan Elzenga]

The new Guided Transformation tool in Lightroom CC2015.8 can probably do it. It can make much stronger corrections than the other methods. You would have to draw two parallel 45 degrees lines. Unfortunately, the OP does not have that version, though.

 

[LRList001]

Actually Lightroom can rotate images other than 90 degrees. It can straighten a horizon with the crop tool, and there is a rotate slider in the Lens Corrections block (Transformation in the latest version, but you use Lr 5.7). The latter will create empty pixels if needed, the crop tool will not. I don't know by heart how far you can rotate, so just try if that gets the desired effect. Be sure to uncheck 'Maintain Crop'!

You may have to lower the Scale slider too, in order to keep the corners inside the frame.

Thanks. I tried this, but it doesn't allow the rotation I need. I want both the crop and the image to rotate. Using the horizontal/horizon line approach is no different from rotating the image using the rotate cursor or using the angle entry. Lens corrections take into account the length of the lens (it seems) and in my case, I used a longish lens which results in very slight adjustments being possible. Why Adobe (seems to) assumes that using a long lens will result in so much less distortion escapes me. Perhaps they got their maths wrong.

 

[Ian.B]

I'm thinking you need PS to do what you have in mind
Tip ; always take a few level / normal photos as well when you have an "idea" in mind . As with filters on the lens; it can be hard to remove the effect
Maybe post a photo or two so we can see your idea

 

[Johan Elzenga]

Thanks. I tried this, but it doesn't allow the rotation I need. I want both the crop and the image to rotate. Using the horizontal/horizon line approach is no different from rotating the image using the rotate cursor or using the angle entry. Lens corrections take into account the length of the lens (it seems) and in my case, I used a longish lens which results in very slight adjustments being possible. Why Adobe (seems to) assumes that using a long lens will result in so much less distortion escapes me. Perhaps they got their maths wrong.

I think they've got their maths just right. This is not lens correction, this is perspective correction. Perspective is depending on the distant to the subject, and if you were shooting with a longer lens you must have used a greater distance or the subject would not have fitted the frame. Think about it: if you are shooting with a super wide angle, you may have to tilt the camera upwards as much as 45 degrees to keep the top of buildings in your image. If you tilt a 200mm lens 45 degrees, you are shooting just sky if you started out with the same subject size.

 

[LRList001]

I think they've got their maths just right. This is not lens correction, this is perspective correction. Perspective is depending on the distant to the subject, and if you were shooting with a longer lens you must have used a greater distance or the subject would not have fitted the frame. Think about it: if you are shooting with a super wide angle, you may have to tilt the camera upwards as much as 45 degrees to keep the top of buildings in your image. If you tilt a 200mm lens 45 degrees, you are shooting just sky if you started out with the same subject size.

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't really want to hijack this thread into a discussion of the maths of perspective correction. However, you might have missed a photographic situation when using a longer lens at more than 45 degrees to the horizontal to pick out detail. The range of adjustment LR offers isn't enough to correct fully for such a setup (or 5.7 has limits that are different from 6.8, always possible). I called it lens corrections, because that is where LR places the perspective controls, the user interface section in 5.7 is called "Lens Corrections".

I rotated the lens to the diamond position (halfway between portrait and landscape I mean) because the view was partially blocked by other objects and this way I could find a light path that squeezed past them, it also results in a rather greater percentage of the image being the bit I want, retaining more detail.

The answer, #2 courtesy of Cletus, is that LR does not support what I want to do, which is fair enough; as I put in the OP, I can do this in a few moments outside LR, I was checking I hadn't missed something within LR.

Thanks to all who have taken the trouble to reply, I consider this query resolved.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

You were questioning the math, so I tried to explain why the math is correct. I know that until recently this was under 'Lens Correction' (it is now in a separate tab called 'Transformation'), but that doesn't change the fact that it is perspective correction. The distortion is not caused by the lens you used (lens distortion is corrected by the lens profile), but by the amount of tilt. That's all.